Forgive me--I am drunk. If it were not so, then I don't think I would respond to "Kubla Khan." But I'm in a what-the-hell mood.

What "real" Coleridge? The "yon beanfield" Coleridge? Blech.

"Indeed, a careful reading reveals the poem to be so complex and involuted as to preclude the probability of its spontaneous generation."
It's not an especially long or deep poem. One man's "complex and involuted" is another man's completely random drug-induced blather. You try to make it out to be this super poem, but you don't have to make a case for this in such an essay. "It's an awesome poem" is not a substantial thesis. You assume that the reader has read the poem--don't try persuade him or her that it is awesome by saying so. Just show what is unique and clever about the poem, along the lines of a thesis.

"Taken alone, Kubla Khan is a stirring, striking, piece of verse."
Taken alone, it is pure nonsense drivel. Why the hell is so often anthologized? Not for its poetic merit, I'm sure. Rather, it's the "Ripley's Believe It or Not" appeal that makes this poem so famous.

". . . it stems from the reading of a text." What you posit based on this assumes Coleridge's account to be completely true. Maybe he looked at the text afterward and worked it into the poem. Maybe he had read the piece several times. Is it really that remarkable that elements of the text found their way into the poem (mind you, a poem that he wrote down while he was awake, regardless of whether the words came to him in an opium fog or not)?

"Coleridge even presents the 'sentence, or words of the same substance' he was reading at the moment he 'fell asleep.'"
You know, when I took TESOL classes, we studied a method of teaching that had students relax while listening to language instruction tapes--they could even sleep while listening to them. I don't remember the reported effectiveness of this technique. It might make for an interesting comparison.

Is this idea of "fancy" a revolutionary idea today? Back then?

"Thus, the poem can be read as a fanciful, spontaneous creation on the part of the author."
You're assuming a lot about what actually went on as Coleridge wrote the poem.

"The verse is stunning on its own."
I totally disagree, and you don't need to make these judgement calls in your piece. There are a few lines that I like, but it does not strike me as a poetic masterpiece--more like meaningless but cute drivel. It could easily stand in for one of those "this is your brain on drugs" commercials.

"How much more stunning it becomes when the reader 'learns' that it was a hasty, opium-induced improvisation!"
This doesn't surprise me at all.

Your suggestions of metapoetry don't strike me as applicable. The fragments stuff. . . maybe.

"Just as a character in André Gide's The Counterfeiters writes a novel called The Counterfeiters and Velasquez' canvas Las Meninas shows Velasquez in the process of painting, so does Coleridge's fragment include a fountain of fragments."
And "The Garden of the Forking Paths" and "Lost in the Funhouse."

"There need be no more solid bond between the maiden's song and the vision of Xanadu than the powerful effect they had on the narrator."
I don't see common bonds between most of the elements of the poem.

". . . multi-layered, involuted fictive world."
Where? The metapoetry angle?

"With this ending, Coleridge ties the threads that he's been spinning into one solid knot."
Huh?

"The final words, 'he on honey-dew hath fed / and drunk the milk of paradise' bring together the two poles of the poem's reality. These words form a judgement passed on the poet, and a distilled metaphor for the imagination itself."
Where do you see judgement in those two lines?

This is one of those dreams that many people have had. In it, you discover the meaning of life or something great. When you wake up, you mean to write it down, but you can't quite remember it. For me it was "free the socks." For Coleridge, it was "Kubla Khan." In all the times I have read and taught it, I haven't found any meaning worth extracting. But I salute you for trying.

This piece seems a bit wordy and redundant in places. Here is what I thought to be repetitive from the first several paragraphs:

". . . Coleridge composed a long poem mentally. . ."
"It is all too easy to mistake the poem for a work of imagination. . ."
". . . anything he creates may be a work of the imagination."
". . . casts doubt over the imaginative process of literature." (How?)
". . . Kubla Khan is undoubtedly a work of the imagination."
". . . the poem seems a product of the "inspired" imagination."
"Coleridge had to be creative. . ."

Hey, you can post drunk any time!

This was a well-written, intelligent piece. People should write more stuff like this on the site.

That being said, I don't think you're doing any criticism here. It's a fine appreciation of the poem (perhaps tilting a bit much toward the drug-induced genesis of the poem), but I don't think you've interpreted it in a particularly unique or incisive way. Considering that this is one of the most famous poems in English literature and perhaps one of the most written about and interpreted, your professional audience (which I'm assuming you wrote it for due to the footnotes and the quality of your writing) will find it pleasant to read but not particularly insightful or revealing about the work itself. That being said, I acknowledge that you might well be a better writer than I am since you seem to have some of the imagination and creativity you laud Coleridge and his opiates for.

Dirt: while I appreciate most of what you write from what little I've seen, I think you're taking an awfully obtuse approach to "grading" Sean's submission. Truly only a high school teacher could chide a piece of literary criticism for not speaking to a "general audience" and assuming prior knowledge of its readers. I'm assuming Sean is a university student of some sort and that he has quickly learned not to let "Freshman Comp" notions of structure and summarization get in the way of academic prose. I don't think he's writing this as an essay -- if he were, you're right that there would be severe problems finding his "thesis." But to look for a thesis as you would in reviewing a 13 year old child's homework misses the point of the style and aim of this type of writing, which you admittedly don't seem to relate to (hippie-dippie valorizations generally aren't my thing either).

I don't want to take you to task for being provincial, but if you can't relate to Kubla Khan you must have a general antipathy toward poetry. Meaningless drivel? Quite the contrary. It is one of the most suggestive and intepretable poems in the canon -- hence the reason good teachers in universities and high schools have had students analyze the poem to death (with very mixed results, I admit). If you can't find any meaning in this particular poem, you probably picked the right career choice since you're better off teaching basic grammar and essay structure than literary criticism and interpretation (what your brighter students WILL learn to do successfully in college). Kubla Khan is eminently worthy of interpretation and open to multiple interpretations. If I'd fault Sean for anything, it would be the LACK of expanded interpretation, not for trying to intepret it at all (as you criticize him for in writing off the poem). Using empty, dismissive phrases like "meaningless but cute" in reference to one of the great Romantic poets comes awfully close to being the bad stereotype of every high school teacher we rolled our eyes at. Let's put it this way: if you described Coleridge as "meaningless but cute" in a graduate thesis, you'd be laughed out of every seminar room in academe. There's nothing cute about Coleridge. I can understand that perhaps he frustrates your X-Y-Z expectation of order, but intellectually conservative "champions of rationality" generally don't do well with poetry.

Shark: and I'm pedantic? This whole discussion should make your anti-intellectual response twitch.

By the way, boys, it's spelled JUDGMENT. Everyone gets that wrong in Freshman Comp -- no second "E."

"Judgment" and "judgement" are both acceptable, actually, although the former seems to be preferred (but not necessarily more common).

This comment is a response to Booey's response to my response. Sorry in advance for losing sight of your original post, Sean.

Booey said: ". . . perhaps one of the most written about and interpreted. . ."
Huh? Is there some basis for your claim, or is this just some meaningless supposition--you know, one of those statements that fledgling academic snob wannabes make in their writing just to fill up space?

Booey said: "Truly only a high school teacher. . ."
Truly only a fledgling academic snob wannabe would make such a generalization (irony intended). Try doing a survey of the occupations of your peers the next time you are in one of your vaunted graduate classes. Who do you think is sitting next to you? Generalizations don't make for good arguments (irony intended).

I absolutely did not "chide a piece of literary criticism for not speaking to a 'general audience' and assuming prior knowledge of its readers." I said: "You assume that the reader has read the poem--don't try persuade him or her that it is awesome by saying so." How can you, Booey, be so wrong in reading what I wrote? (Irony intended).

I didn't mean to grade his essay. I meant to give feedback that might help him make it a better essay (I somewhat assumed this was his purpose for posting it here--Blogcritics). They are only suggestions and opinions. I may be wrong. But Sean can decide that. Even if he doesn't change it a bit and gets an "A," does it do any harm to think about what I wrote? I didn't intend to be mean-spirited (although I clearly have issues with interpretations of "Kubla Khan"--a poem from which I find no intended meaning (that doesn't mean that I dislike the poem, though)). In my drunken stupor, perhaps I was too picky. I apologize for sounding so negative.

Booey said: "But to look for a thesis as you would in reviewing a 13 year old child's homework misses the point of the style and aim of this type of writing, which you admittedly don't seem to relate to (hippie-dippie valorizations generally aren't my thing either)."
Most types of writing have purpose ("Kubla Khan" an exception?). Sean's piece has purpose. A thesis does not have to be stated in a "high school" style thesis statement in order for it to exist. I don't read a piece with the piddling purpose of locating a "high school" style thesis statement. I do try to figure out what a piece is about as I'm reading it. Sean writes about the "fancy" topic and about how the poem is about the process of creating poetry. A lot of Coleridge praise seems to murk up those purposes in the piece--that is all I was trying to say.

I have a problem when writers pay homage to the great by heaping absolute praise on them. Coleridge was a great writer. But was he perfect? As a teacher, I see students heap absolute praise on writers, as if these students would go to hell otherwise. Often, they are trying to appease me (something I try to get them to stop doing in their writing) as if any criticism of an absolutely established-as-great author would cause me to give them a bad grade. They don't have to kiss the author's butt. They don't have to be afraid. They can criticize the best of them (isn't that part of critical thinking?). That said, it's not wrong to praise an author--just please don't overdo it. Please don't do it absolutely. Please do it specifically.

Read "The Emperor of Ice Cream," by Wallace Stevens. Go ahead and spend a lot of time interpreting it. Read about Stevens and what he tried to do with his poetry. Then, laugh at yourself. Do the same in considering the art of Marcel Duchamp (Dada). This reminds me of a comic strip I once saw:

A group of critics tours a museum. They mistakenly enter an off-limits room that has been cleaned out for an upcoming exhibit. The walls are completely blank, except for the light switch. They gather around the light switch. "What a profound statement of the human condition. This work of art cleverly expresses
Romantic dualism." A critic flips the switch to off. "Oooh." "Darkness encompasses the depravity in our souls." The lights are switched on. "Oooh." "The light symbolizes newfound hope, fragile as it teeters on the brink of darkness." "The Saussurean, faux-Foucaultian dynamics render all previous conceptions of Blakean polarity trite and. . ." A janitor interrupts them and kicks them out.

Student asks teacher, "Where can I get the textbook at?"
Teacher replies, "Never end your sentences with prepositions."
Student says, "Okay, where can I get the textbook at, asshole?"

Wow! I had no idea this would provoke such a shitstorm. If I had, I would have posted it long ago. :)

Some background, for those of you who find value in the intentions and biographical trivia of an author:

My audience was "professional" only inasmuch as I submitted it to a professional professor for an undergrad comp. lit. class almost ten years ago. (I got an A, if anyone cares.) So I wasn't really trying to break any new ground, the way I would if I were a grad student or professor trying to make a name for myself. I wasn't specifically looking for criticism to make it better, though I always accept it. Mainly, I have always liked this because I thought I had some clever writing in it and I figured it didn't do anyone any good sitting in a binder, and didn't do much more good buried three levels down in a personal page, so I decided to throw it at the wall to see if it would stick. I've enjoyed all the debate, and my feelings haven't been hurt a bit. One of my grad school friends called me a "sport arguer," which I suppose is pretty accurate.

As for Dirt's criticisms: Yup, it's repitious and padded with puffery in places. I admit I was kissing Coleridge's butt a bit. I was in a bit of a passing Coleridge phase, and I have often found it more fun and productive to lean toward praising something I like rather than tearing down something I don't when trying to write a piece -- which is not to say I don't enjoy slinging mud at sacred cows, to mix a metaphor. Being the pretentious git that I am, I like to think that I wasn't so much uncritically raving about the poem as creating a narrator who did.

Since I consider myself as a writer first, a critic second, and a scholar third, I'm content with what I perceive as the general judg(e)ment that the writing is better than the argument.

Thanks to all the sport arguers!

Just for the record (pardon the legal humor for a moment), but "judgment" has taken root largely as a result of the legal system, which uses that form of the word. Otherwise, "judgement" is perfectly acceptable, and I can't see where anyone could get it "wrong" in Freshman Comp - in fact, I've known of a few oldline freshman comp professors who suggested the other form was actually more acceptable.

As for Kubla Khan itself - there's a very good fictional version of its creation by Avram Davidson, reprinted in The Other Nineteenth Century, a wonderful collection of his alternate histories. I'm impressed by both Davidson and Sean here: I'd be hard pressed to write so much about Kubla Khan without a gun to my head or an exam in front of me.

It's the power of coffee. At 23 I drank enough to kill a burro.

As I re-read Dirtgrain's comment, I was struck by two things:

1. The never-ending fascination I have with why people adopt odd nicknames online.

2. Whenever people mention "generalizations," I am reminded of Oliver Wendell Holmes' admonishment: "No generalization is wholly true, not even this one."

Dirtgrain,

Even though I find it difficult to communicate with you since we have these generalizations and assumptions between us, I do recognize that you're better-read and educated than most of the writers on this site.

I agree with you that the worst kind of "high school writing" is probably the butt-kissing pieces, the hagiographic rambling that takes the easy way out to avoid engaging a piece of literature and really taking it apart. The best criticism is fearless. Sean was probably smoking a lot of something himself when he wrote the piece, but the quality of his writing makes it different than the papers you've graded that start "For much of world history, people have loved great stories. The Old Man and the Sea is a great story that had lots of important stuff to say."

Here's where you're out of touch and/or wrong:

First, all poems have meaning. To assume otherwise and to give up on interpretation belies your attempt to bring out post-modernism (my major area of theoretical interest) as a shield. You can use "cute" references to the death of the author, but you seem to be unwilling to accept the consequence of such theoretical insights: that there's nothing BUT meaning and that all we have is our interpretations. The good part of that uncertainty is that EVERYTHING is thus interpretable and our arguments over meaning have real social implications.

Second, lots and lots of critics apparently disagree with you and think Kubla Khan has plenty of meaning. Do a search of any database of literary criticism or visit a college library for nostalgia's sake. It's perhaps one of the most written about poems ever -- that's why even you teach it despite your sense that it's meaningless.

Secondly, no one believes in authorial intent anymore. I'm glad that seemed like breaking news to you when you learned it 30 years ago while in school. I still enjoy some psychoanalytic criticism but no one teaches that you should analyze a poem strictly based on the poet's biography and the occasions of her life when it was written. Strangely enough, one of your reasons for dismissing Kubla Khan as fodder for interpretation IS based on Coleridge's biography and your distaste for "opium haze ramblings." There's some irony for you.

I don't know how to quote your text, so I'm going to address some of the things you said in random order:

Yes, I took some cheap shots at high school teachers. I have friends who are now high school teachers and respect for people in graduate education programs (which are different than graduate programs in theory or literary interpretation, by the way). The point I was making is that you were applying some ridiculously narrow and pedantic standards which largely missed the point. I'm glad to hear you actually encourage the multiple interpretations and arguments about Kubla Khan I talked about in your teaching -- I'm surprised to hear that from someone who would use a strawman argument like "It's about whatever. I can make it about the Virgin Mary if I want." There are certainly better or worse interpretations and the quality of a criticism is determined by the evidence it finds in the text.

I actually like Stevens and I find Duchamp funny, by the way. I've spent way too much time on Foucault. For someone who claims to appreciate post-modernism, you sure seem to like the "wacky e-mail list of the day" pat stereotypes of theory like that little art gallery comic strip. I enjoy theory much more than I enjoy literature -- and focus on studying theory and philosophy -- so I'm hardly someone who loves any art enough to declare it sacrosanct. I'm rather artless, in fact, which is why I prefer theory.

What about me would suggest I'm a clone to you? The fact that I'd even start this discussion and the general response I get from you all on this site might provide you some hint that I'm no defender of convention (all hail high school essay structure) or elitism. I don't sympathize with defenders of the literary canon nor do I reserve particular praise for anyone.

High school teachers SHOULD be able to interpret literature, yes, especially if they're teaching college prep or AP courses. You pay lip service to theory and interpretation but your comments and attitude don't seem to be those of someone who really appreciates or welcomes the act of interpretation. Your reading list may be wider than that of the average high school teacher (although your name-dropping reeks of grad-school desperation), but I don't know that you get what interpretation is about. Your original response seems like a lot of bluster from the sidelines.

That being said, I agreed that Sean's piece didn't DO much interpretation. It was well-written, but he didn't engage the text as much as he could have and I wouldn't have given him that "A" in all likelihood. So we both agree that he needed more criticism and less praise. But as Sean says, he's a writer more than he is a critic or a scholar. And he's a good writer, obviously, better than anyone else in this discussion.

Finally, the word is properly spelled "judgment" and has been for quite a long time. The only reason "judgEment" has become acceptable style recently is because people are so insistent on spelling it that way. If you look at an old-school dictionary, you won't even find the second "acceptable" spelling. The only thing I'm conservative about is spelling. Correct spelling is inviolable truth.

I won't take you to task over your writing style or sentence fragments because they don't bother me. I like the way you write and I'm not the high school teacher told to focus on grammar and basic essay structure, remember? You abuse parenthetical comments even more than I do, which I didn't think is possible.

That is all.

Oh, and we also have this in common: we've both picked impossibly stupid nicknames which make it hard for people to take our comments seriously and produce all sorts of cheap ad hominem remarks whenever people have nothing to say.

While your spelling may be something you hold dear, please pay attention to tense, old chap.

Sean,

Just from an academic/professional perspective, I felt that your article was intelligent discourse: well-written, comprehensive, and illuminating.

As someone who has taught this poem to undergraduates for years (some loving the back story more than the poem), I truly appreciate this piece.

Thank you.

You've convinced me. When I finish my folly I plan to sit in it reading Kubla Khan with the children gathered at my feet. Or maybe I can get a stonemason to carve a plaque of a verse or two to mount in the wall of my fanciful ruined tower, though I had been planning to use Childe Harold.

dave

I think Sean you can be excused a certain amount of undergraduate infatuation with Coleridge, and particularly this poem! I really enjoyed reading the post thanks - have you got any more hidden away in a binder?